Re: Ideas for store for IFP smushing

* Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it> [2004-08-17 11:40+0200]
> 
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere) 
> >>Sent: 17 August, 2004 08:48
> >>To: 'ext John Black'; mof-rdf@mfd-consult.dk
> >>Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> >>Subject: RE: Ideas for store for IFP smushing
> >>
> >>   
> >>
> >>>What is the status of efforts to make 
> >>>this work into a standard? Was a note ever submitted to the W3C as 
> >>>was suggested at one point? 
> >>>     
> >>>
> >
> >Oops. Forgot to answer this question.
> >
> >To date, no Note has been submitted. It is still a worthy
> >consideration. I got buried in several other higher priority
> >tasks and it subsequently got pushed aside.
> >
> >Perhaps now would be a good time to reconsider producing
> >a Note. 
> > 
> >
> By way of encouragement - I think a Note on CBDs decoupled from URIQA 
> would probably be very well received. It may even help the case for URIQA.
> 
> (Personally I'm agnostic on URIQA as a whole - seems a good idea, but 
> reluctance to add new verbs appears an insurpassable obstacle).

Yes, partitioning the two components makes a lot of sense to me. The 
bounded description algorithm is the sort of thing that could slot into 
a bunch of pre-existing RDF toolkits quite easily, whereas a new HTTP
verb is a much harder thing to get deployed, particularly in the
post-SOAP universe. REST-heads are quite happy with their existing
versbs, and Web service folk seem happy indirecting everything through a
layer of SOAPy XML. That leaves quite a small constiuency for HTTP
extensions. Even WebDAV is feeling that squeeze, I think...

cheers,

Dan